France Sees P2P as a good thing — Wow, this is just breaking now! Huge.
PARIS – A French government crackdown on digital piracy backfired Thursday as rebel conservative lawmakers endorsed amendments to legalize the online sharing of music and film instead of punishing it.
The vote by members of France’s lower house dealt a setback to Culture Minister Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, who introduced the draft legislation. But it also unleashed a chorus of protests from showbiz and cultural celebrities in a sign that the amendments’ supporters may eventually be forced to back down.
Embrace that new market, France. There’s money to be made straying from old ideas.
It’s funny how important stuff like news and current events are openly shared while the entertainment stuff or the trivial is subject to all these legal protections and digital rights enforcement actions. I’m not a collector myself, so I don’t really care if you can download music or movies. It seems like digital distribution is here to stay. Maybe the artists will have to make money doing deals differently. If you have a following, you should be able to get them to pay you for your material or performance. Perhaps what you won’t need are all the publicists, promoters and assorted industry hangers on. Maybe we are nearing the end of the entertainment lobbyists as we knew them. The deal is a part of the art. Start selling autographed discs for a premium. That could be a big collectible. Maybe you could offer autographed Dvorak stuff here and create a collectors craze. Dvorak Linux, autographed with documentation and wall poster $39.99. You might sell a few hundred copies or a few thousand. Get a garage band to cut a few fresh tracks and bundle it as a digital entertainment package.
It’s a publicity stunt, it won’t live.
That is also the reason you won’t see any French city hosting the America Vs the world Nikelympics (aka the Olympics before Samaranch screwed things big time by selling out to Nike and NBC) because in France ANY international sport event is a free for all broadcast for EVERYONE.
I love the French, but they love being contrary just for the sake of being contrary.
“I love the French, but they love being contrary just for the sake of being contrary.”
That’s neat!
P.S: I’m not french
Actually, there is a little known loophole in US law that allows you to download music from outside the US without any copyright violation.
17 USC 602(a)(2) says that “importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time” is NOT infringement.
Thus, if you “import” one song from say, allofmp3.com, or from some other foreign server, for personal use, and do not distribute it to anyone else, the RIAA could not legally come after you.
This probably wouldn’t work with P2P because on those apps it automatically shares the downloaded materials with others on the particular network, thus you’d be violating the “not for distribution” portion of the loophole.
Steve,
Your little known loophole just wider distribution. How long before it is closed by the Republicans?
I didn’t know that though, I should check it out.
Thanks
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/602.html
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap6.html
You mean that law Steve. I think you might want to reread it. You left out a few details. Most P2P advocates do.
“You mean that law Steve.”
Well, I did specifically site to and quote from the statute. So yes.
” I think you might want to reread it.”
Sure, I re-read it.
“You left out a few details”
Well, it appears you did too. What are these details?!
“Most P2P advocates do.”
Gee, can you even read. I specifically said the law would NOT apply to P2P. Is it really that hard to think before posting a response?!
People are so busy trying to prove you wrong, they don’t have time to read before commenting. I don’t know what it is about blogging that makes people do this. You could put up a story saying water is wet and five nitwits would start posting comments saying prove it or no it’s not. Start selling the dehydrated water.
Dvorak reader, great comment. I laughed out loud on that one!
Sorry Steve,
The details you left out were the conditions of the law. The whole statute instead of cherry picking a paragraph. Not only that the statute depends on other statutes in their referencing. What details did I leave out? I linked you to the source with the complete statute. Since you said “probably” instead of stating it as fact, you sounded like you were not sure. I had to check it out myself.
You just wanted to sound like it was possible. Now you said you read the whole statute in your reply. Even before. You ought to think about being more honest because someone will call you on it. Either that or you have a comprehension problem. I think it is both.
And when you get caught, admit your mistake instead of attacking. Even attacking you did not specifically say the law would not apply to P2P. You said probably, contradicting yourself.
The devil is in the details. This applies to phonorecords only. Not digital music. You know, those vinyl disks. Haven’t debated an honest P2P advocate yet.
Sheesh!
Ҥ 602. Infringing importation of copies or phonorecords
(a) Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501. This subsection does not apply to —
(1) importation of copies or phonorecords under the authority or for the use of the Government of the United States or of any State or political subdivision of a State, but not including copies or phonorecords for use in schools, or copies of any audiovisual work imported for purposes other than archival use;
(2) importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person’s personal baggage; or
(3) importation by or for an organization operated for scholarly, educational, or religious purposes and not for private gain, with respect to no more than one copy of an audiovisual work solely for its archival purposes, and no more than five copies or phonorecords of any other work for its library lending or archival purposes, unless the importation of such copies or phonorecords is part of an activity consisting of systematic reproduction or distribution, engaged in by such organization in violation of the provisions of section 108(g)(2).
(b) In a case where the making of the copies or phonorecords would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, their importation is prohibited. In a case where the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made, the United States Customs Service has no authority to prevent their importation unless the provisions of section 601 are applicable. In either case, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to prescribe, by regulation, a procedure under which any person claiming an interest in the copyright in a particular work may, upon payment of a specified fee, be entitled to notification by the Customs Service of the importation of articles that appear to be copies or phonorecords of the work.”
Dvorak Reader,
He was wrong after reading the source. So allowing disinformation is OK? Nothing wrong with pointing out stuff that is said could get someone in trouble thru naivety. I think it is a cruel joke on his part since he admitted reading the statute before. If it was Mickey Mouse trivia, I would not have bothered replying.
“So allowing disinformation is OK?”
You keep telling my I’m wrong, but you refuse to say how. If you’ve got some case law or something else to show that I’m wrong, please tell me because I’d love to hear it. But if you’re just blowing smoke out of your ass, do us a favor and stop posting.
Oops, I missed your attempt to show me wrong. And boy was it an attempt.
“The details you left out were the conditions of the law.”
I left out no such condition. I quoted the exception of 17 USC 602(a) verbatim.
“Since you said “probably” instead of stating it as fact, you sounded like you were not sure.”
Probably means “with considerable certainty; without much doubt.” Thus, what I said was “with considerable certainty” the loophole “wouldn’t work with P2P.” I could not say that it absolutely would not work in all cases because I have not tried every single P2P program in existence. Maybe there are some P2P apps that do not automatically share what you download. I simply don’t know.
“And when you get caught, admit your mistake instead of attacking. Even attacking you did not specifically say the law would not apply to P2P. You said probably, contradicting yourself.”
Once again, you apparently have no idea what “probably” means. Now that you do know, it’s quite clear that I did not make a mistake.
“This applies to phonorecords only. ”
You say that the statute pertains solely to phonorecords. Where does it say that? Here’s the quote: “”Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of COPIES OR phonorecords of a work”
Thus, the statute pertains to COPIES OF A WORK OR to phonorecords. In this instance “or” means either or both.
It’s bad enough that you don’t know what “probably” means. But to not know what “or” means, that’s just sad.
Steve you are not listening.
I already told you. If you omit facts you are not being accurate. I pasted the whole document for all to see. You are the one with the bong pipe. Very poor deflection attempt.
http://www.literature.org/authors/dickens-charles/christmas-carol/
This is public domain stuff. Why don’t you share this.
“Steve you are not listening.”
I’m assuming you missed my response in the same way I missed yours. But once again I omitted no facts. I gave the cite to the statute. I gave the relevant exception verbatim. And “or” means or. Thus a mere copy of a work fits under the exception.
If there is something else I’m missing, please respond. But once again, if you are just blowing smoke out your ass, stop posting.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=probably
Lots of cases were lost on probably.
My bad on the phonorecords. But back then is what was in vogue. 1986. See how easy it is to admit wrong. You just cut and pasted a paragraph. You have to quote the entire source to give a clearer picture. This is disingenuous. When you going to admit your bomb? Becides the DMCA is specific to P2P anyway. That is the law you should be looking at. It is the latest amendment to copyright law.
“Lots of cases were lost on probably.”
I showed you a definition of probably. You can disagree all you want. But it means what it means.
“My bad on the phonorecords. But back then is what was in vogue. 1986.”
It simply doesn’t matter. A copy of a work is a copy of a work, no matter what year.
“See how easy it is to admit wrong.”
The fact that you admitted you were wrong is the sole reason your current post was not blocked.
“You have to quote the entire source to give a clearer picture”
How did quoting the entire source give a “clearer picture”? All it did was waste a lot of time and space. The exception I gave was verbatim. That was sufficient as there was nothing else in the rest of the statute which changed the exceptions meaning. To quote the entire statute would be and was superfluous. Another word you should look up.
“When you going to admit your bomb?”
I’ve admitted that I’ve been wrong before. Plenty of times. But I have yet to be shown any error I made in this discussion.
“Becides the DMCA is specific to P2P anyway. That is the law you should be looking at. It is the latest amendment to copyright law.”
The DMCA pertains to breaking encryption of copyrighted works. It makes any such breaking, out side of a few exceptions, a violation. It does not pertain to the importation of music, UNLESS, that music was encrypted and I bypassed it.
It also has procedures to take down infringing copyrighted materials for the US. Obviously if I were downloading from a foreign server, the DMCA would not apply to my importation as I’m not the one hosting it. And it would not apply to the foreign server because it would be outside the jurisdiction of the US.
Let me clear something up. I’m an attorney who concentrated in IP. Do I know everything about IP?! No. I don’t work in IP law. But I know infinitely more than you. So unless you have something relevant to say in the discussion, I see no reason why you should continue posting in this thread.
I didn’t see my post up there to your last one. Now I know what you mean by your post would be deleted. You must be the moderator, Steve. You must have taken lessons from Bill O’Reilly. Cut the mic if you don’t like an opposing view. Where I come from, there is freedom of speech. That is the usual tactic of someone who is wrong.
Uncensored. My ass it is.